justin: We will take up
compliance issues again. We will follow the usual procedure,
asking for text proposals and discussing them and if we do not
find consensus get to a Call for objection.
... Today talk about ISSUE-207 the disregard signal

ISSUE-207: Conditions for dis-regarding (or
not) DNT signals

justin: Jonathan Mayer had put up
a text proposal on servers must not disregard a technically
valid signal.

<Chris_IAB> did I miss
something? are we talking about a compliance provision in the
TPE?

<Chris_IAB> oh, did we shift
now to working on the TCS?

justin: We are talking about how
to address the disregard signal in the Compliance and Scope
specification.

<WileyS> We of course
strongly disagree with that perspective. A Server should be
able to send the Disregard response anytime they feel there is
a material issue with the signal or the sender of the
signal.

justin: There are a lot of people
in the group that disagree with Jonathan's proposal. Currently
there are no provisions on when to send this signal.
... When I looked at the document this morning I thought that
Jonathan's proposal may not be necessary. Based on the current
text for the D signal in the TPE.

<wseltzer> zakim mute
WaltMichel

<Chris_IAB> I can't here
anything

<Chris_IAB> better now

<WileyS> It was
WaltMichel

<dwainberg> Why is this the
first TCS question we're taking up now? And why are we
considering a proposal from someone who's withdrawn from the
group many months ago.

dwainberg: What is the reasoning
for taking up this TCS issue first. And why taking up
Jonathan's proposal when he left the group months ago.

<dsinger> my perception is
that we have reached an uneasy peace and maybe opening this is
going to open old wounds to no useful effect

justin: fair question, no magic
to it. We thought it may be easier to tackle since closely
related to our recent work and may not be overly
controversial.

<npdoty> " A third party to a
given user action that disregards a DNT signal MUST indicate so
to the user agent, using the response mechanism defined in the
[TRACKING-DNT] recommendation. "

<Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to
comment on one sentence mention of disregard in compliance

<Chris_IAB> many, if not most
of the provisions in the draft TCS, are out of date

justin: I heard previously from
Walter and John Simpson support for Jonathan's proposal. We
need to check if that's still the case.

<ChrisPedigoOPA> +q

<JackHobaugh> Which TCS draft
are we working on?

npdoty: Referncing the section of
the TCS spec on the D signal: " A third party to a given user
action that disregards a DNT signal MUST indicate so to the
user agent, using the response mechanism defined in the
[TRACKING-DNT] recommendation. "

<WileyS> The two points we
agreed upon earlier: (1) if you're going to disregard then you
must share that with the user and (2) if you send Disregard you
must also provide a resource link to explain why that position
is being taken.

<WileyS> They changed the
draft on us - so we need to fix it

<vinay_> Agreed with Shane. I
thought that's where the group landed.

justin: We made these decisions
for TPE, we may need to port these over to TCS. TCS may require
additional transparency.

<Chris_IAB> when did this
agenda item go out? I'm not feeling prepared to answer these
questions today

<WileyS> Hearing no one -
please close the issue.

justin: You may be right that no
one wants to take up Jonathan's old proposal that servers must
honor all DNT signals and not second guess them.

<WileyS> Justin, no one is
arguing that a Server must always honor all signals no matter
what. That's the whole purpose of having the D signal in the
first place.

<WileyS> Can we please close
this ticket? This is a waste of time.

<WileyS> One that we were
given literally an hour to prepare for.

ChrisPedigoOPA: Circular argument
to say that you must honor all signals. If the company wants to
comply it will take the DNT signals serious. And transparency
is always key in the communication with the user.

<dsinger> Quick question:
does anyone WANT to discuss this (ever) again? Or can we close
it as belonging to Mr Mayer?

<WileyS> Please close

justin: taking up dwainberg's
question. Does someone wants to keep this issue open?

<npdoty> I'm fine with
leaving the text as it is. (I was just trying to help us
understand what the language in the document was.)

justin: I will send the question
to the mailing list and if no one takes this up. Let's close
it. Just want to make sure, that we do not close relevant
issues

dwainberg: Will the chairs
provide some kind of roadmap how to take on the compliance
work. There is confusion about this particular document. Which
version to use etc.

justin: Last summer the chairs
decided to work on the previous June draft and collected issues
up to October. We will take up this list of issues in the next
weeks.

dwainberg: Will we walk at some
point through the document and raise new issues?

justin: Think we have a pretty
comprehensive list of open issues. We have identified 15ish
areas where we will ask the group for new text proposals. New
issues are currently on the side.

rvaneijk: Getting back to the D
signal - Would a server in a chain be able to transfer the D
signal down the chair. Asking about the transitivity.

justin: Not sure I get this
completely.

<WileyS> In an Exchange
model, if the platform itself sends a "D" then I could see a
transitive structure issue but if individual bidders in the ad
placement offer different responses (some "D", some not) I'm
not sure transitive value is necessary.

rvaneijk: News website would
answer a DNT signal with D and also transfer the D signal to
all ad networks on the site.

<fielding> I can't think of
any use case where D would be transitive.

<WileyS> The Publisher /
Direct 3rd Party example is not a good use case for
transitivity as each party responds on its own.

justin: I think in this example
the publisher would answer N for Not tracking and the ad
networks will answer in their own capacity.

<WileyS> Roy, there is a
possible case in a Client-Server to Server-Server call chain -
as exists in many Ad Exchanges.

<WileyS> Nick, to your point,
they'd likely not forward the DNT signal in the
server-to-server call

<npdoty> WileyS, right, and
the first party in that case would respond 'D' directly to the
user

<npdoty> npdoty: in the
client-server case (301 redirects, etc.), each party can
respond directly to the end user (with a D or not)

<npdoty> ... in the first
party server to other servers case, the first party might
choose to disregard, reply with D and then not comply with
first party compliance restrictions (like sharing with a third
party)

<dsinger> I don’t think
‘passing a D’ makes sense. Each response contains what that
server thinks it is doing. If you want to *instruct* your
thirtd parties to ignore something, they will need to respond
‘D’ and explain ‘Fred made me do it’ in their policy.

<Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to
comment on transitivity

ninja: We will take up dwainbergs
roadmap suggestion. Team will send out an overview of what the
areas we have identified for compliance and will take up one by
one.

<WileyS> Nick, agreed - we're
on the same page

justin: I invite folks to take a
look at TCS and the disregard signal. I found the language a
little confusing. But if the WG is happy with it as it is,
let's not make it more complicated.

<npdoty> yeah, if everyone is
fine with the document, let's send out an email to confirm and
then close it?

justin: I will send out an email
to the group and point to this issue.

charter

Charter extension

<WileyS> What happens if a
majority of the group doesn't want to extend?

wseltzer: We noticed that our
current charter will end on 30 April this year. Our current
work plan based on the poll and the discussion in the
group
... goes up to June 2015 as a revised schedule.
... The director suggested to extend the charter not only up to
this date but up to December 2015 to stay around longer to
cover errata etc.

justin: What would happen if we
do not extend the charter.

wseltzer: It is the director's
decision. If the charter would not be extended the group would
be out of charter.

justin: Could the WG formally
object?

<WileyS> Could we change the
Charter to simply complete the TPE and leave it at that?

<dwainberg> What is critical
mass?

wseltzer: Working Group members
are not able to tell other WG members to stop their work. If we
have still interest in the work the WG will continue.

<WileyS> Its been 6 months
since then

<WileyS> Many participants
are no longer with the working group

<WileyS> If we took a poll
now I believe the outcome would be very different

<WileyS> 3 or 4?

<WileyS> How else can new
facts come out if we don't take a poll?

justin: Answering Shane's
question. Decision on plan to move forward was to advance TPE
first and then continue on compliance. Not inclined on do
another poll. If there is no new information.
... Currently W3C and the chairs and at least part of the WG
feel it is worthwhile to continue the discussion on
compliance.

<Brooks> It seems like there
is interest in such a poll. Am I wrong?

<dsinger> TTWG got down to 4
members at one point (maybe 5)

dwainberg: Wendy said that there
needs to be critical mass. How many people are required?

<npdoty> the group can decide
on its own work at any time; the charter is just a formal
matter of whether the Consortium allows the group to work on
things in its charter

wseltzer: We need different
stakeholders in the process. Although it is not the volume from
the beginning. Most important are the actual implementers.

<npdoty> dsinger, I think we
prefer more than 5 :) although I think the preference is to
have 10 to 15 people

dwainberg: Are you saying the
advertisers keeping this alive?
... Would our leaving have the impact of terminating the
WG?

<WileyS> If less than 10
people on today's participants raise their hand to suggest they
want to continue work on the TCS, does that give the co-chairs
a meaningful signal?

<WileyS> As none of the
co-chairs represent industry, we'll continue to see this
disconnect.

justin: The intention from the
beginning was to work on a standard for a DNT signal. Has this
intention changed?

dwainberg: Wendy said one of the
factors keeping this alive is our participation. It's smaller
than ever, mostly just me. It may make sense to me to drop off
the group

<dsinger> both participation
and implementation are voluntary...

<Chris_IAB> npdoty, the
advertising industry has been railroaded at every step in the
development of these specs

npdoty: Sorry to hear that people
feel that they have no choice but to be here. It is a voluntary
standard. We had and need a variety of stakeholders. I was
optimistic that we have sufficient interest from the industry
to do the work.

<Brooks> I think we disagree
on the meaning of "compelled to be here"

justin: q?

<WileyS> Not a poll - a
"hum"

<Chris_IAB> let's not
conflate interest with agreement with the direction the chairs
and staff have taken this initiative.

<WileyS> Many things have
changed in the past 6-7 months

justin: We will not ask for a new
poll on motivation. We did this in October. We will still
follow this decision.

<WileyS> Seeing that the
co-chairs are not taking working group feedback, its difficult
to see a fair path forward.

<dwainberg> All in favor of
not continuing work on the TCS?

<dwainberg> +1

<WileyS> +1

<Chris_IAB> I'm hearing from
Justin, that it's not about critical mass... "we are moving
forward" (period)

justin: We will do a better job
to put up the agenda earlier next week. I will send out a note
to the group about the D signal.

<Chris_IAB> +1

<Brooks> +1

<Chris_IAB> so to be clear,
the call was cut short

<vincent> thx

<Chris_IAB> by the Chair

justin: If you want to keep
discussing going forward, please do so on the mailing list.
Will keep the call focused.
... bye